How to enforce a martial agreement / order of protection

[Bali Hai]

You stated that your divorce was granted at the end of December 2013. That means that the judge did not sign off on it before that date. Therefore nothing was official until that date...not your ownership of the house nor her ownership of the dogs. It appears that you have told her no about picking up the dogs at least once, if not several times since that date. You even told her no when she called the cops (who by the way, have no decision making power in that circumstance because its a civil matter).

You have never given her notice to pick up the dogs by a certain date or you will consider them abandoned.

I am trying to make you understand that your hands are not clean here either, and that is going to hurt you. If you want to get her signing the quit claim accomplished by filing for contempt, you have to expect that she will counterclaim for contempt for you not releasing the dogs to her. If she tells the judge that she even called the cops and you refused to release the dogs...who do you think that the judge is going to consider to be the bad guy? Unless she is stupid she is going to tell the judge that you tried to force her to sign a quit claim deed that she had no time to read first, and then will tell her side of the story regarding the dogs. You cannot tell the judge that you have actively asked her to pick up the dogs and she has refused, because you HAVE NOT done so. You haven't done so because you love the dogs and you really want to keep them.

I am not unsympathetic to you. I am trying to make you understand that you need to have clean hands if you really want things to go your way.

He hasn't told her to pick up the dogs because he CAN'T contact her, not because he loves the dogs. Please refrain from putting words into OP's mouth. And yes, I'm sure the ex will try to do the same thing.

 

[LdiJ]

He hasn't told her to pick up the dogs because he CAN'T contact her, not because he loves the dogs. Please refrain from putting words into OP's mouth. And yes, I'm sure the ex will try to do the same thing.

Bali, you are not helping this guy.

 

[stealth2]

He hasn't told her to pick up the dogs because he CAN'T contact her, not because he loves the dogs. Please refrain from putting words into OP's mouth. And yes, I'm sure the ex will try to do the same thing.

So.... How did he contact her about the deed he wanted her to sign?

 

[outlawstar]

I got that setup via the mutual friend who tried to give her the paperwork.

I think at this point I will just file a motion to show cause

 

[stealth2]

And I've been dying to say this all day... If you want to know how to enforce a martial agreement? Consider emailing Putin. He's good at it.

(I know, I know - a typo. But too good to pass up!)

 

[outlawstar]

And I've been dying to say this all day... If you want to know how to enforce a martial agreement? Consider emailing Putin. He's good at it.

(I know, I know - a typo. But too good to pass up!)

Ha, could always use a good laugh while dealing with this bs.

I am going to file a motion to show cause and see what happens from there.

I really do appreciate all the advice that has been given.

 

[not2cleverRed]

He hasn't told her to pick up the dogs because he CAN'T contact her, not because he loves the dogs. Please refrain from putting words into OP's mouth. And yes, I'm sure the ex will try to do the same thing.

And yet... When she called police and wanted to at least visit with the dogs, he said no.

I think that was a moment where he should have just called her bluff, and let her leave with the dogs (which were hers as part of the agreement).
It would look better to go to court and say he's handed over the dogs when asked for them, but that she won't sign the papers. In fact, the
great thing about doing that when the police were called is that he would have independent credible witnesses to the action. He comes across then as reasonable and more than fair.

 

[outlawstar]

And yet... When she called police and wanted to at least visit with the dogs, he said no.

I think that was a moment where he should have just called her bluff, and let her leave with the dogs (which were hers as part of the agreement).
It would look better to go to court and say he's handed over the dogs when asked for them, but that she won't sign the papers. In fact, the
great thing about doing that when the police were called is that he would have independent credible witnesses to the action. He comes across then as reasonable and more than fair.

While I agree with you on what you are saying, I am at the point that I have complied with everything (and even gave her things in advance to help her along) and she makes me going through hoops for anything I need from her. I have been more than civil with her and it has gotten me no where. Why continue to give give give when in the end I think we all agree she is going to make me spend time and money to take her to court.

If she told me today she would sign the deed I would have no problem giving her the dogs or letting her see them or whatever the case my be. However, I am not going to give them and be stuck still needing what I need.

 

[not2cleverRed]

While I agree with you on what you are saying, I am at the point that I have complied with everything (and even gave her things in advance to help her along) and she makes me going through hoops for anything I need from her. I have been more than civil with her and it has gotten me no where. Why continue to give give give when in the end I think we all agree she is going to make me spend time and money to take her to court.

If she told me today she would sign the deed I would have no problem giving her the dogs or letting her see them or whatever the case my be. However, I am not going to give them and be stuck still needing what I need.

Don't get caught up in the tit-for-tat. Don't contribute to the drama.

Hand over the dogs if she asks for them. Done. No drama. You could have said to the police officer, "You know, she was supposed to get the dogs in the agreement, but I've been having trouble contacting her about that and the deed. I'm SO sorry you had to be involved with resolving this."

When she made a scene at the notary's, you could have been calm, not snippy. Say, "I guess we should set up another time to sign this then. How about [2days, 1 week, some reasonable amount of time]?" If she goes ballistic and gets violent, call 911 and file a report. (Do you really fear for your life, or is she just irritating?)

We all get that she annoys you - if she didn't annoy you, you'd think of it a marital, not martial troubles. So don't contribute to the drama. Repeat to yourself until it sinks in: "This is nothing new, accept she is the way she is; I can only change the way I react to her."

Carry on with the business of completing the legal hurdles of getting what you need as coldly and rationally as possible.

 

[latigo]

Thanks for all the advice.

As far as the home goes she was never on the mortgage just the deed, and in the settlement and the granted divorce I was given exclusive rights to the property. I just need her to sign the deed over. The paperwork for the deed is less than a page and it is very simple just stating what the house is location and transfer from her and I to just myself. . . . . .

I will ignore as incidental your mistaken belief that the ex is on the deed but not the mortgage. (Which could only be true if you were the sole recorded owner of the home at the time the mortgage was created.

The central and yet unanswered question is whether or not the divorce decree in fact awarded you sole ownership of the home?!

Because now instead of that, you are saying that "I was given exclusive rights to the property". Exclusive rights to what?

If that is all the decree provides, then unless your ex wife is physically interfering with "your exclusive rights to the property", you can forget about having her held in contempt of court.
_______________________

Then you describe a "one page deed" as transferring title from her and you to you? (Whoever drafted it should give up the art.)

Because one does not deed land from oneself to oneself! To vest the title to the home in your sole name, the ex simply needs to deed over to you all of her right, title, equity and interest. Most commonly, in theses instances, by a quitclaim deed.

But if the ex was not ordered to sign over to you her marital ownership interest, and/or the decree itself was not suitably drafted as to be accepted for recording and thus vesting you with sole ownership and you don't wish this to drag on indefinitely . .

THEN you'll need to hire an attorney to sort it out. Its not brain surgery, but it is something that few laypersons, including you, are incapable of. Nor will you become capable by fooling around on the Internet.

 

[outlawstar]

Thanks for the most useless post so far. I am here asking for advice and not to be called names from a tough guy behind a computer.

So please do me a favor and forget you ever read my post.

 

[Ohiogal]

Thanks for the most useless post so far. I am here asking for advice and not to be called names from a tough guy behind a computer.

So please do me a favor and forget you ever read my post.

Latigo is actually 100% right. He/she was not nice but 100% correct!

Sorry Latigo for not knowing your gender. I personally think you are male. But could be wrong. Maybe I should just refer to you as Hermaphrodite.

 

[Bali Hai]

And yet... When she called police and wanted to at least visit with the dogs, he said no.

I think that was a moment where he should have just called her bluff, and let her leave with the dogs (which were hers as part of the agreement).
It would look better to go to court and say he's handed over the dogs when asked for them, but that she won't sign the papers. In fact, the
great thing about doing that when the police were called is that he would have independent credible witnesses to the action. He comes across then as reasonable and more than fair.

Yes I agree, courts demand men to be reasonable and more than fair.

 

[Bali Hai]

Latigo is actually 100% right. He/she was not nice but 100% correct!

Sorry Latigo for not knowing your gender. I personally think you are male. But could be wrong. Maybe I should just refer to you as Hermaphrodite.

Does that have anything to do with Hermarrhoids?

 

[CJane]

I will ignore as incidental your mistaken belief that the ex is on the deed but not the mortgage. (Which could only be true if you were the sole recorded owner of the home at the time the mortgage was created.

Interesting. I've never been on a mortgage - not for the houses owned during my marriage, or the one my fiance and I are in the process of purchasing. But I've always been on the deed / title. I will be on the deed / title for the new house as well. Why do you believe that's impossible?